JLHPROF Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 SO many things have changed in the way the sacrament is administered from the way is used to be in the early days. This thread is just focused on one of them. Given the limited instruction in revelation and all the changes made to this point it is hard to see what shouldn't change and what can. It is also impossible to know what items were changed by inspiration/revelation and which were changed by the will of man. In fact many of the instructions in the CHI were clearly placed to removed things that had previously been tradition.
Teancum Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 20 hours ago, CMZ said: Does the practice of the sacrament first being passed to the bishop (or whoever the meeting's presiding officer is) stem from a scripture? Policy. Silly, silly policy. Unwritten policy.
Popular Post ksfisher Posted September 19, 2016 Popular Post Posted September 19, 2016 7 minutes ago, Teancum said: Policy. Silly, silly policy. Unwritten policy. It actually is a written policy. Handbook 2, 20.4.3 "After the prayer, deacons or other priesthood holders pass the bread to the congregation in a reverent and orderly manner. The presiding officer receives the sacrament first. The bishop (or a counselor in his absence) presides at the sacrament meeting unless a member of the stake presidency, an Area Seventy, or a General Authority is sitting on the stand. A high councilor does not preside and does not receive the sacrament first." [emphasis mine] And I don't think it's silly at all once you understand the symbolism. 5
toon Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: No, it does not. It is a rule that serves a few functions: 1. As the sacrament is passed to the Bishop first he is approving the ordinance. If something went wrong and he was unable to alert the Aaronic Priesthood he now has an opportunity to intervene. 2. As the highest ranking Priesthood leader in the ward it is his responsibility to make sure the sacrament is passed correctly. Giving it to him first means he is not distracted in the middle and can monitor the passing to make sure no one is missed. 3. The Bishop often misses breakfast due to morning meetings and giving him the bread and water first ameliorates noises his stomach may make during the three-hour block to preserve reverence. I always thought he was testing for poison. I mean, we're dealing with the food handling practices of hygienically-challenged young men.
Calm Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 1 hour ago, ksfisher said: It actually is a written policy. Handbook 2, 20.4.3 "After the prayer, deacons or other priesthood holders pass the bread to the congregation in a reverent and orderly manner. The presiding officer receives the sacrament first. The bishop (or a counselor in his absence) presides at the sacrament meeting unless a member of the stake presidency, an Area Seventy, or a General Authority is sitting on the stand. A high councilor does not preside and does not receive the sacrament first." [emphasis mine] And I don't think it's silly at all once you understand the symbolism. And it helps boys I would think to always understand how it is done if they move from ward or are visiting, etc. even if at times they don't know who on the stand is to get it, as a group they know when to wait and when to start. 1
Teancum Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 1 hour ago, ksfisher said: It actually is a written policy. Handbook 2, 20.4.3 "After the prayer, deacons or other priesthood holders pass the bread to the congregation in a reverent and orderly manner. The presiding officer receives the sacrament first. The bishop (or a counselor in his absence) presides at the sacrament meeting unless a member of the stake presidency, an Area Seventy, or a General Authority is sitting on the stand. A high councilor does not preside and does not receive the sacrament first." [emphasis mine] And I don't think it's silly at all once you understand the symbolism. Thank you for the correction. I still think it is silly. And I thought it so when I served as a bishop. It reminded me much of what the NT says about the Pharisees and Sadduces.
ksfisher Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 1 hour ago, Teancum said: Thank you for the correction. I still think it is silly. And I thought it so when I served as a bishop. It reminded me much of what the NT says about the Pharisees and Sadduces. I've been in sacrament meetings on two occasions where I received the sacrament first. Both times I found the experience very humbling. 1
The Nehor Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 5 hours ago, Gray said: The only thing in scripture that might suggest an order would be "the first shall be last and the last shall be first". It seems then that bishops ought to get it last, but that teaching has never seemed enter our collective consciousness. I find the application dubious but even if it does work that way by going first the Bishop the congregation before himself which makes it a humble act.
Garden Girl Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 10 hours ago, Calm said: I have seen it a couple of times where hands were tentatively raised in a large crowd and missed because deacons aren't looking back and the priests at the table either weren't paying attention or they couldn't see. It makes sense to have one guy assigned to keep an eye out so there is no confusion and one week you have 3 people and the next no one paying attention. In my ward, because the influx of visitors during summer and on 3-day weekends causes us to open the building to the back of the cultural hall, setting up every folding chair available (Labor Day weekend we had 400+), a member of our bishopric always steps to the podium and asks if there is anyone who did not have the opportunity to partake of the sacrament that wanted to do so. We sometimes have to ask visiting deacons to assist in passing on those occasions because we have so few Deacons in our ward... in fact, even on regular Sundays we have to ask the older men to pass... from the beach... GG 2
Bernard Gui Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, Teancum said: Thank you for the correction. I still think it is silly. And I thought it so when I served as a bishop. It reminded me much of what the NT says about the Pharisees and Sadduces. It made me consider my worthiness to be given such an honor. The Sadducees and Pharisees were seeking the honors of men. I doubt that many bishops swell up with pride because they receive the sacrament first or seek that kind of recognition. Edited September 20, 2016 by Bernard Gui 1
Bernard Gui Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 10 hours ago, JLHPROF said: SO many things have changed in the way the sacrament is administered from the way is used to be in the early days. This thread is just focused on one of them. Given the limited instruction in revelation and all the changes made to this point it is hard to see what shouldn't change and what can. It is also impossible to know what items were changed by inspiration/revelation and which were changed by the will of man. In fact many of the instructions in the CHI were clearly placed to removed things that had previously been tradition. Perhaps the changes have been necessitated by the paucity of specific instructions. I have no reason to suspect foul play on the part of those who hold the keys to administer it.
Calm Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Garden Girl said: In my ward, because the influx of visitors during summer and on 3-day weekends causes us to open the building to the back of the cultural hall, setting up every folding chair available (Labor Day weekend we had 400+), a member of our bishopric always steps to the podium and asks if there is anyone who did not have the opportunity to partake of the sacrament that wanted to do so. We sometimes have to ask visiting deacons to assist in passing on those occasions because we have so few Deacons in our ward... in fact, even on regular Sundays we have to ask the older men to pass... from the beach... GG And I think it is great a deacon can take any place in front of the table and with minimum of instruction be confident in what is expected of him. or older men who may not have done it for years. There are some great benefits to consistency across the world. Edited September 20, 2016 by Calm 4
Gray Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 11 hours ago, The Nehor said: I find the application dubious but even if it does work that way by going first the Bishop the congregation before himself which makes it a humble act. I like this approach. I'd like to express my humility by cutting in line and getting the best seats in the theater. I am, after all, the least of these.
The Nehor Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: I like this approach. I'd like to express my humility by cutting in line and getting the best seats in the theater. I am, after all, the least of these. No, I refuse. I insist I go first to assure you a better place in heaven. Now stand aside.
Doctrine 612 Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 Ok here is the answer everyone has been waiting for. is it policy? Yes is it scripture? Well that depends on how you view general conference talks, if there scripture then yes. The Lord's Sacrament President David O. McKay Second Counselor in the First Presidency David O. McKay, Conference Report, April 1946, pp. 111-117 A snip it of the talk PRESIDING OFFICERS TO RECEIVE SACRAMENT FIRST Rather should that young man carry the sacrament to the presiding officer, not to honor him, but the office, as you honored our President tonight. That presiding officer may be the bishop of the ward; if so, let the young man carry the sacrament first to the bishop. After that pass it to one after the other who sit either on the left or the right of the presiding officer; not going back to the first and second counselors and then to the superintendent. The lesson is taught when the sacrament is passed to the presiding officer. The next Sunday, the president of the stake may be there, who is then the highest ecclesiastical authority. Do you see what the responsibility of the deacons and the priests is? There is a lesson in government taught every day. It is their duty to know who is the presiding officer in that meeting that day. Next Sunday there may be one of the General Authorities. Those young men will have in mind the question, "Who is he today, and who is the presiding authority?" 1
Doctrine 612 Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 Also one more, the sacrament was also passed during Sunday school in the long forgotten days.
cinepro Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 33 minutes ago, Doctrine 612 said: Also one more, the sacrament was also passed during Sunday school in the long forgotten days. "Long forgotten days" = "Until 1980"
cinepro Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 (edited) A few weeks ago, I attended a "farewell" for a friend and former Bishop and SP of mine who was called to be a Seventy. The ward they are in doesn't have many priests, and my friend's son is s priest, so he blessed the Sacrament with his son. The first deacon approached the Bishop with the bread, but the Bishop pointed to the SP (who was also there for the farewell). When the deacon approached the SP, he pointed over to the sacrament table where my friend was sitting (which, fortunately in this older chapel, the sacrament table was located in the middle of the rostrum and down in front, so my friend just reached back over to be the first to take the bread). It's the first time I've ever seen that happen! Edit: Here's a picture of the chapel! Edited September 20, 2016 by cinepro 1
JAHS Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 22 hours ago, JLHPROF said: SO many things have changed in the way the sacrament is administered from the way is used to be in the early days. Here's another one. This 1894 photo in the Ephraim tabernacle shows the one administering the sacrament raising his hands up in front of him during the blessing.
Teancum Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 21 hours ago, ksfisher said: I've been in sacrament meetings on two occasions where I received the sacrament first. Both times I found the experience very humbling. How was it humbling? Why does someone need to be first? 1
waveslider Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 15 hours ago, Garden Girl said: a member of our bishopric always steps to the podium and asks if there is anyone who did not have the opportunity to partake of the sacrament that wanted to do so. This happens in my ward all the time too, because we also have a lot of visitors. 1
BCSpace Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) Quote 1. As the sacrament is passed to the Bishop first he is approving the ordinance. If something went wrong and he was unable to alert the Aaronic Priesthood he now has an opportunity to intervene. Like when we put sprite in the cups as teachers one Sunday to test D&C 27:2. The Bishop was first, but he did not stop it. However, we received a mighty stern lecture afterwards. Edited September 21, 2016 by BCSpace Spelling 1
ksfisher Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 17 hours ago, Teancum said: How was it humbling? Why does someone need to be first? I'm not sure I can put into words, in a way that would truly convey my feelings, why the experience felt humbling. I don't think anyone needs to be first. It's symbolic. The symbolism is there for anyone who wants to see it. 1
Recommended Posts